[Kim]

Our position is simple; we shouldn't wait for a threat to our security or regional security to become a grave, immediate danger. The evidence is there that Saddam may not have possessed actual WMD, but he had the know how, the scientists to build it and the desire to once everybody stopped paying attention to him.

If thats the case, I guess the world should be expecting US attacks on Brazil. After all, the country has announced to start producing enriched uranium, which means it will be able to make nuclear weapons on a relatively short notice. And it says it won't allow international inspectors to make unannounced spot inspections of its enrichment plant.

[VioletlightHeron]

If thats the case, I guess the world should be expecting US attacks on Brazil. After all, the country has announced to start producing enriched uranium, which means it will be able to make nuclear weapons on a relatively short notice. And it says it won't allow international inspectors to make unannounced spot inspections of its enrichment plant.

Last time i checked, Brazil was more concerned about Carneval in Rio :lol: Seriously, Britain has nukes, so does France; they don't have a desire to dominate their neighbors and invade without so much as a by your leave. Brazil, Britain and France also have governments that are chosen by democratic process ( and yes, Leslee i realize that you feel some democratic processes are better than others, they still allow the people to vote and choose the government, however imperfectly). They arent controlled by schizo, power hungry meglomaniacs who have no restrictions on their internal power by a congress or judicial system. So, what's to worry about with these countries? Nada. I just feel its better to be aware of the countries who don't have stable political processes and what their intentions may be, like alot of the countries in the Middle East, North Korea, China and to some extent Russia.Put it this way, would it have been better to wait until Saddam had actually put together chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and re-invade one of his neighbors and then try to throw him out and restore political stability in a region where all of the world's economies greatly depend on or throw the bum out before he has a chance to go nuts and start lobbing nukes or germ bombs on Saudi Arabia or Israel? That, in my opinion, is a no-brainer.

[AmbitionlessHipster]

Put it this way, would it have been better to wait until Saddam had actually put together chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and re-invade one of his neighbors and then try to throw him out and restore political stability in a region where all of the world's economies greatly depend on or throw the bum out before he has a chance to go nuts and start lobbing nukes or germ bombs on Saudi Arabia or Israel? That, in my opinion, is a no-brainer.

Err... with all of the (american) economic and miliatry support (not to mention US governmental, to the higest degree) I think that Israel could easily defend themselves... in fact, I am pretty sure they have the capabilities to do much worse damage than Iraq 50 times over.

This is clearly about power politics and economic interests. It was not primarily based on ousting Hussein for humanitarian purposes. If the US (and allies) were so thoughtful, then they would be working non-stop to find a peaceful and fair solution to to the ethnic cleansing occuring in Palestine/West Bank. The Palestinians, however, are not profitable, and therefore do not matter... the Israeli's are (through investments/economy) profitable. And, if you want to compare, Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, and I would place him on the same level as Hussein and Bin Laden.
So, why the support for Sharon?
I think it is a simple answer.

[AmbitionlessHipster]

what kinda ticks me off is the assumption by the other European governments is the right to moralize and judge our decisions when you yourself know that Saddam and other threats are out there. Our position is simple; we shouldn't wait for a threat to our security or regional security to become a grave, immediate danger. The evidence is there that Saddam may not have possessed actual WMD, but he had the know how, the scientists to build it and the desire to once everybody stopped paying attention to him.

You know what is even more of a tick off? The US assuming that they have the legitmate authority to approve and disapprove of who can and will posess WMD. Who legitimates their power over everyone else? I do not recall Saddam threatening or engaging in open warfare/declaring war...
There are other threats... in fact, as far as I am concerned, anyone with a gun is a threat; you just do not know when they are going to use it.
And why is it, then, with the other threats, that the US does not take "affirmative action?" profit and gain.
Now those reasons are enough to show that the US should not have legitimate authority to decide who has WMD or anything because, as we can all see, it is truly for selfish reasons.

[das_hips]

I'm not really in an appropriate position to make a comment, I mean, afterall, who really understands the TRUE motives of the US Government. It may be laid out in front of us by the media, and personal intrepretations based on the media, but we really will never know, it is the media. Obviously there is some economic interest in everything from the misplaced 9/11 retaliation to the 'war' in Iraq, and whoever can't accept that is definitely nieve. But I am not going to complain, because the entire world's (or, more appropriately, Western Civilization's) economy functions according to US interests. So, as I accept that reality, I am also a little intimidated by the US gaining so much political and economical power that they can control the parts of the world that matter to them. The US had no right to storm into Iraq, a country that has shown no terrorist activity on US soil, or upon any US owned commodity. What ever happened with the hunt for Osama, or actually punishing the country involved in 9/11? What comes after the rebuilding of Iraq, which I full-heartedly agree should be more important to the US than space travel. An unprecedented attack like that should leave an unsettling feeling in half of the middle east, and anyone who takes it upon them to envison the next 25 years. Petroleum is important now, but 20 or 25 years down the road it won't be nearly as important, and other natural resources will be... "Knock, knock... hey Canada... we're coming in, we need lumber"... maybe I'm just paranoid... but any country that makes a mess and asks (demands)other countries (almost forcibly) to help them clean it up should resposition themselves in terms of priorities and global perception.

[beanmedic]

This is all there is to say about nukes:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.funnypart.com/funnyflashandjokes/FunnyPart-com-endoftheworld.html">http://www.funnypart.com/funnyflashandj ... world.html</a><!-- m -->

[Summiteer]

Do The Evolution
Time: 3:54
Vedder, Gossard
I'm ahead. I'm a man.
I'm the first mammal to wear pants.
I am at peace with my lust.
I can kill cause in god I trust.
It's evolution baby.

I'm a piece of the man.
I buy stocks on the day of the crash.
On the loose. I'm a truck.
All the rolling hills I'll flatten 'em out.
It's herd behavior. Uh huh.
It's evolution baby.

Admire me, admire my home, admire my son, he's my clone.
This land is mine, this land is free, I'll do what I want, yet irresponsibly.
It's evolution baby.

I'm a thief. I'm a liar.
There's my church I sing in the choir.
Hall-le-lu-jah.

Admire me, admire my home, admire my song, admire my clothes.
Consider, appetite for nightly feasts.
Those ignorant Indians got nothing on me.
Nothing. Why? Because, it's evolution baby.

I am ahead, I am advanced, I am the first mammal to make plans.
I crawled the earth, but now I'm higher.
2010 watch it go to fire.

It's evolution baby.
I do the evolution.

[Kim]

Put it this way, would it have been better to wait until Saddam had actually put together chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and re-invade one of his neighbors and then try to throw him out and restore political stability in a region where all of the world's economies greatly depend on or throw the bum out before he has a chance to go nuts and start lobbing nukes or germ bombs on Saudi Arabia or Israel? That, in my opinion, is a no-brainer.

Ehmm, have we forgotten that the US supported Saddam with its biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs in the 1980's during Iraq's fight against Iran? Why was it ok then and not now? The answer is oil. The Iranians had overthrown the pro-USA Shah government and threatened the US's domination of the oil-rich region.
Somebody like Rumsfeld who now played a significant part in demanding war against Saddam, in the past was up to his ears in trying to promote, and excuse Saddam, they're just a bunch of hypocrites.

Great posts btw Leslee :thumb: